Talk:Alligator (steamboat)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alligator (steamboat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

First reading

This is a short article (appropriately, GACR 3b) but one that's in pretty good shape. I think only some minor edits are needed to get this up to GA.

• Operation: is "Metamora steamboat" the same as Metamora (shipwreck) (probably not given the different location and dates)? I'm not sure how this should be marked but it's a little confusing given the other article. And at the end of the operation section, "the fire" is also confusing, as it appears to be a forward reference to the next section rather than something we already know about. (GACR 1a, clear prose)
  • Looks like they are two separate vessels as thought, hence the non-linked mention of the ship's name.

• Rebuild: "cabins deck" should be "cabin deck". And under Sinking, "written records such as Certificate of Enrollment" has a plural/singular mismatch (GACR 1a).
• The lead and infobox properly summarize content from the rest of the article. The lead is footnoted while the infobox isn't, but that's an ok choice of citation style. The article is not long, so it's ok that the lead has only one paragraph. The overall section structure of the article makes sense logically. (GACR 1b).
• Lead: "famed"; design and construction: "relatively unique": see words to watch for, GACR 1b.
• The references are all reasonably well formatted (although I think it looks a bit stupid to list the name of a newspaper as both the publication title and publishing organization, and the Cerrato reference needs page numbers: pp. 261–266). However three out of four links are deadlinks (GACR 2a), and the fourth goes to a generic title page for that issue of its journal. They look sufficiently secondary and reliable, and even if they couldn't be recovered the deadlinks wouldn't change the reliability of their sources (GACR 2b). I did find what looks like the Smith reference at [1], I think a better link for Cerrato is [2], and archive.org found the newspaper stories at [3] and [4]. But I worry that this heavy number of deadlinks, and the lack of edits by the nominator to the article, indicate a lack of attention to detail pre-nomination.
• Cerrato is used only to source a generic statement about steamboats in that area (and does validly source that statement) but also contains details about the characteristics of the Alligator and of Moore's purchase and use of it. So it could plausibly be used as a source for more of the article, supplementing the heavy reliance on Smith.
• Earwig (including a direct comparison to Smith) found only copying of place names, technical terms, and a properly marked direct quote, so there is no problem with inappropriate copying (GACR 2d).
• One minor quibble with the sourcing: the line about "losses in citrus freight transport" is in a context that suggests it was in 1894, but the source makes clear that it was 1895. A link to Great Freeze would help.
• Search for wreckage: there's no punch line. Did they ever find anything? (GACR 3a)
• The article appears neutral (GACR 4) and is very stable (no significant changes since 2016; GACR 5).
• There are three illustrations in the article, a colorized photo, a black & white photo, and a route map. The black and white one is properly credited but the provenance of the colorized one is dubious. However, it is clearly old enough to be public domain. The map is modern but appears to be validly PD-USGov. (GACr 6a) The images are all relevant, and properly captioned (GACR 6b). None of the images is particularly high quality; that's ok for the use you're making of them, but the map could be replaced by a better copy from its original source.

• • Believe I have addressed it all. @David Eppstein: QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague:: I'm putting the nomination on hold to give you time to address these. Please ping me when you think it's ready for a second reading. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague: Almost all, but you didn't update the reference links? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Swapped out the Cerrato link. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • There were four deadlinks. And why did you remove the other publication information for Cerrato? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @QatarStarsLeague: Hello? Is there some reason this is taking so long? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @David Eppstein: I think he has forget to do it, in case I would go with the fail for taking his time. Animation is developing 01:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Ok, I don't like to fail so many articles, especially one like this that wasn't so far from the mark, but I kind of agree. The nomination was drive-by (without significant edits to the article) and although the more cosmetic of my suggestions have been taken care of, the suggestion to use Cerrato as a more significant source for expansion, the suggestion to include a better copy of the PD-USGov map, and even the suggestion to fix the reference links have not been properly handled after several weeks. Failing for now; no prejudice against a later nomination as long as it comes after more significant effort at cleaning up the article first. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)