Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fore River Shipyard

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fore River Shipyard edit

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like eventually get the article to be a Featured Article, but would like some feedback before I nominate it to reach that stage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly oppose at this stage

I'm really glad to see an article on a shipyard here, as we need more of them. I think this article needs some more work on the copyediting though, before it reaches A-class, and it might be worth going through GA first. I've gone through the first bit, and I'd note:

  • "What's more" - should be "What is more"
    • I never really heard of that usage before, but it may be more of a regional dialect thing, so I have fixed it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shipyard can trace its beginnings back to 1882," - "can trace", or just "traces"?
  • "alongside Fore River in" - I'd normally expect "the Fore River"
  • "Thomas A. Watson " - watch the duplicate links
    • I've always operated with the assumption that there should be one link per section, but that is also going off of an idea from 2008, so I can remove it if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his business partner Frank O. Wellington " - repetition from previous paragraph
  • "as the result of building their first ship, the Barnacle, which was fitted with local furnishings, including castings." - it wasn't clear to me what the local furnishings and castings had to do with this (i.e. why is it important?)
    • This may come from the aspect of "support a local business", although it was probably more of a necessity a century ago, but it ties into the quote a lot better. Do you want this removed? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The success of this operation was further compounded by the fact" - you usually "compound" a problem, not a success, so this read oddly
  • "Furthermore, the diversity of the company was due to the fact that Watson desired to employ as many friends as possible." - I don't think you've explained that there was diversity yet, or what that diversity is (products? backgrounds? nationalities?)
  • "The Panic of 1893 would bring a new era to the company, as the depression limited the company's possibilities." You don't need the conditional here: "The Panic of 1893 brought a new era..."
  • "United States lightship LV-72 was constructed alongside the destroyers," -the previous sentence said the other two ships were the last to be constructed at the location - was the lightship built there, or somewhere else?
    • There, but the way that it is ordered allows for some confusion, so let me know if you want me to rework this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The awarding of the USS Des Moines (CL-17) brought a new era to the company." - repetition of "a new era"
  • "Watson decided to build a new yard in Quincy with his own money." - repetition, you've already said the company moved in the previous paragraph
  • "bringing with it some financial stability to the yard, as new expenses were quadruple those at the East Braintree location. " - not sure what this meant
    • I think that was in reference to revenues, and was used as another term for it, because that is the only thing that would make sense in the context of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to accommodate the lack of buildings at the new location" - not sure "accommodate" is the right verb here
  • Use of the consumer price index. The consumer price index is designed to compare consumer goods (e.g. the price of a loaf of bread, or a pint of beer). It can't be used to compare the prices of big objects like ships, because they're not part of the index. Use in this way is typically Original Research - see Template:Inflation for more details on the wiki, or [1] off-wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually ran into that information the other day when I was correcting the numbers to 2014. On the peer review page, Nikkimaria left a suggestion that I consider adding that, so I just went ahead and added it to all instances in order to cover all of the bases. In light of this, I will remove the ship information, but what do you suggest that I keep? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for missing the question! Looking through them, I don't think that any of the financial sums in the article can be compared using the Consumer Price index - they look like they are all big projects, corporate profit/loss figures etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

More to follow later. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Fore_River_Shipyard&oldid=602002172"