Talk:STV Astrid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disambig links: Fix Weymouth Harbour link.
Done, now goes to Weymouth Harbour, Dorset which redirects to Weymouth, Dorset (content about the harbour currently seems to be entwined throughout that article). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference check: 2 issues found

Greyham Neilson's Vision (info) [adventureundersail.com] - dead link
Done, now uses archive link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Astrid Plundered (info) [eveningecho.ie] - dead link
Not done, page doesn't seem to have been caught by a web archive. :-( I'm not sure what to do here - would it be best to just remove the reference and re-source the info? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This article has one major issue that jumps out. It uses past tense while the ship is still in existence, meaning that all the tenses need to be switched until it is actually destroyed. Quite often some of these ships are restored after being condemned to the yards, and if it hasn't happened yet, it might not happen at all.

Not done see discussion below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As built, W.U.T.A. had a gross register tonnage of 182; she was 143 net register tonnage with a capacity of 123 tons under her deck." - cite please.
Done. I think the note was obscuring this reference (#13); I've now removed the note along with reformatting the numbers as per the #Notes section above. I guess the ref could be included multiple times in that paragraph if that would help make it clearer still. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Her dimensions were 30.75 metres (100.9 ft) length, 6.49 metres (21.3 ft) beam and 2.90 metres (9.5 ft) depth." - Cite please, the note is just on conversion.
Done as per the above, but the ref here is #14. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please expand on the details of the Astrid Trust?
Done I've added a point about the type of organisation it was, but I can't find much else out about it online. :-( I'm not sure there's much more to tell here, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HRH is at an issue with WP:HONORIFICS
Done HRH has been removed from the link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Astrid Trust was wound up" - please fix this "wound up" matter.
Done, I've linked to the explanation of the term. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Astrid had two deckhouses: one at the stern with navigational equipment and maps, and another forward containing a bar. The lower deck had twelve 2-person cabins (of which three could be used as 3-person cabins) as well as showers, toilets and a galley.[28]" - Please join the above lines or expand, because this section is extremely short on details and risks the article's focused coverage.
Not done I don't know of refs that can be used to expand this, and I think the description here (even if it is brief) is fairly important for the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"GPS Atlas" is a redlink(Fine if notable) and if its a ship, should be in italics
Done It's now in italics. I think it's notable, as it's included in the list of the biggest sheerlags in the sheerlag article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Finland – Sailing Ships". Lets Talk Stamps. 26 March 2011 is a blog, could you not get another source for the information?
Done in discussion below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, its short and could use some additional details and coverage given that the vessel has been around for 90 years. It is just a borderline GA with the fixes right now, so please put some more content into it. I'll place this on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the review Chris. :-) I'm travelling at the moment so it might be a while before I can tackle these points. On your last one, I've looked fairly hard for as many references as I could find here, do you have any suggestions of places I could find references I might have overlooked? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gotchu I gotchu :) Already added the ref. Good luck with the review! Newyorkadam (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

P.S. Are you the same Mike Peel from Wikimedia UK?

Yes. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I found the ref by googling "ship astrid stamps -queen" (because Queen Astrid kept on clogging my results)

P.P.P.S. Here's another ref I found that I hope helps. I didn't add it into the article though.

I'll see what I can dig up, but let me know when you can dedicate some time to it Mike Peel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably going to be around the 25th-26th before I can put more effort into this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a ref to [1], which I just stumbled across. It looks pretty definite to me that the ship is going to be broken up rather than restored again, so I think the use of past tense in this article is justified. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... but I do see that it is inherently likely. The tense matter however makes it seem as if it was already done. Let's not worry about it though. The source is interesting, could you add the details form the "Scheepslog" section as it is indeed additional information that helps out. I'll leave this open so you can finish your work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]