Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 16:57, 15 July 2008 [1].

USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

edit
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I believe it meets the requirements for a featured article. Under the purview of WikiProject Military History it has had a peer review (available here) and a successful A-class review (available here). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Why are there no citations in the lead? The rest of the article seems to be heavily sourced. I see this as inconsistent per FACR §2.c.
    • My preference, except for the most extraordinary claims, is to keep the lead free of citations. Everything in the lead is cited in the body of the article. If the consensus is to cite any (or all) of the lead, however, I'll be happy to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise this is certainly comprehensive and well sourced--particularly given the topic's scant significance. (Why anyone would care so much about this ship to write such an in-depth article is beyond me. I mean no offense to the contributing editors.)
    • To each his or her own. Why does anyone write about old hurricanes or TV shows? Because it interests them, I suppose… — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also say that it is well written and well laid out. One would think that this was one of the most important vessels in naval history.

Aside from the lack of citations in the lead, I see no reason to oppose this nomination. Lwnf360 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are not required in the lead, assuming it summarizes the article's context which should be cited later on. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is addressed in WP:LEADCITE. Many great leads have no citations at all. Plasticup T/C 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just out of curiosity, why the monospaced text for LASSCO? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the article LASSCO is enclosed within <small> tags, like this – LASSCO – to simulate small caps. It's an old typography thing to keep acronyms or initialisms (typically of 4 or more characters) from drawing UNDUE ATTENTION, as this example phrase may do. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes http://www.maritimematters.com/index.html a reliable source?
    • Well, the website's been quoted in The New York Times and USA Today. They even say so right on the front page, so it must be true! All kidding aside, the publisher of the website is Martin Cox, who guest-curated a 2004 exhibit on the Los Angeles Steamship Company (the last owner/operator of this ship) at the Los Angeles Maritime Museum entitled "Hollywood to Honolulu: The Los Angeles Steamship Company’s Voyages to Hawaii in the Roaring ‘20s" (link to notice of exhibit at museum website; link to museum newsletter (pdf) that confirms his role [see page 5]). He also reports that he has an upcoming book of the same title to be published in the fall of this year by the Steamship Historical Society (though there's no independent confirmation of this on their website).
    • The website is mentioned and a co-editor quoted in the following news articles (backing up the claim on the main page of the website):
      • Sloan, Gene (2008-01-18). "Monotony and duplication reign with cruise ship names; Many out there are bland, copied or just not right". USA Today. p. 9D.
      • Santos, Fernanda (2008-01-14). "Three Seafaring Queens Spend a Day in New York". The New York Times. p. 3.
    • Individual ship pages at the website list references consulted, and in cases where I have had access to the same references, I have confirmed the accuracy.
    • The specific information that I cited was a personal account of the iceberg collision that identifies by name the passenger and the granddaughter who forwarded the story to the website. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- My comments about citations in the lead have been overruled. Lwnf360 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web ref formats aren't consistent, such as the two DANFS ones don't match the rest. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DANFS citations are referring to items that are in the "References" section, where full details are provided, much like book references. Were there other inconsistencies apart from those? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Solid prose, well-cited, and better in style and content than most existing military history FACs. Strongly recommended both for its clarity and the depth and quality of the information. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good from here. --Brad (talk) 00:40, 14 July 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_Princess_Matoika_(ID-2290)&oldid=1138474687"