Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling is correct. British spelling is used in the article. The prose is not clear and concise. The lead paragraph has a number of fairly unrelated sentences all lumped together in one paragraph. I am also unclear if the ship was originally named Alert or Lady Carmichael (potentially conflicting information between the lead and the "GPO ownership" section). Sorry, I clearly forgot to write a lead at all and missed that because the early history didn't have a heading. I've now added a heading and will provide a proper lead in due course when the other issues have been addressed. I have no information from my sources what the ship was doing (if anything) between construction and purchase by a cable company, or what it was named (if anything) during that period. But note that this article is about a cable ship, and it wasn't that until STC took it on. It's previous name certainly would not have been either Alert or Lady Carmichael. SpinningSpark 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Update: According to user Lyndaship, a more reliable source says the ship was named Lady Carmichael from launch in 1871, so I've amended the article accordingly. SpinningSpark 13:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] "War work" first sentence uses "its" without identifying what "its" refers to, the ship, or Britain? "The idea was to force German communication on to radio where it could be intercepted and attempts made to decode it" is grammatically awkward. Some of the sentences in that section have become long and awkward to read; the "Without telegraph connections" section has three commas linking different dependent and independent clauses, and I get lost reading it. Generally, the section contains too many commas. It's not the commas that are the problem, of course, it just that the prose needs to be simplified with fewer compound sentences that are easier to read and understand. I've done some copyediting on this. Clearly, the "its" refers to "Britain" as that is the subject of the sentence. SpinningSpark 15:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] The whole "End of career" section is difficult to read and I was very confused about what it was telling me even after reading it several times. I don't know what the second and third sentences of that paragraph have to do with this ship and what was done. The rest looks like a list converted into a number of sentences without much in the way of a real narrative. The second and third sentence document what happened to the cable-handling equipment of the ship after it ceased to be a cable ship. This is the equipment that makes it a cable ship, so is pretty central to an article about a cable ship. I've done a slight tweak on that. The rest of the paragraph was contributed by another editor, User:Lyndaship, and gives the ship's history after it was no longer a cable ship. It is referenced to the Miramar ship database, so it is not surprising it is list-like, and it is unlikely it could be expanded much, at least, not from that source. I doubt that the ship did anything very notable during that period, it is not relevant to cable work, and it is only included for completeness. I'm really not sure what actionable point you are making here. SpinningSpark 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section should summarize the entire article without introducing information that does not appear elsewhere. A reader who wants a quick overview about what CS Alert is should be able to glance at the first few sentences of the article and gain an overall understanding. The remaining parts of the lead should fill in additional information and invite them to read the article for the full details. Presently, the lead section does not summarize any of the rest of the information in the article. It contains a history of the building of the ship, its capabilities, and information about the winch. None of that information appears anywhere else in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In-line references are used, appropriately cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In-line citations are used, sources appear to be reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am not seeing any signs of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No online copyvio or plagiarism detected. Some spot checking of sources provided shows that the citations are accurate and revealed no close paraphrasing or duplication.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes. There is a relatively narrow body of information that I would expect to find in an article about a ship; when and where it was built, when and where it was removed from service, what it did between those dates, and what makes the ship notable. This article covers all those points. The importance of the Zimmermann telegram should be separated into its own paragraph and expanded slightly to explain how the interception of the telegram was made possible by the actions of this ship. Winkler has some details that can help the reader explain the connection, so a couple sentences about that in this article would be helpful. One thing I'm also not clear about is whether this was the only ship employed by Britain to cut cables in World War I? If so, the link to the Zimmermann telegram to this ship is a bit more dubious, but could be mentioned in a more general sense to illustrate the importance of the type of work that this ship performed during the war. I've written some more on Zimmermann. I didn't want to write too much on this as it is not directly on-topic and we do have an article to point to. Alert was certainly not the only ship involved in cable cutting and diverting; there was a world-wide campaign of this by both sides in WWI and several such ships were sunk. However, it is certainly true that Alert completely cut the German cables across the Atlantic on the first day of the war, forcing Germany on to less secure channels for any communication with the Americas. No other ship was involved in this particular work. Alert did not even have a Royal Navy escort, as stated in the article. SpinningSpark 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comments about the Zimmermann telegram in section 3a above. The way the article appears at the present time paints the picture that this ship played a significant role in the entry of the United States into World War 1 due to the interception. If that is not the case, then the section should be reworded to clarify that this was just one ship in a much larger effort that resulted in... or something like that. Well, we can't say that the Alert was directly responsible for the US entering the war, and I don't think the article says any such thing. The US did not declare war even after the Zimmermann revelation. What it did do was fundamentally change the opinion of a lot of Americans previously committed to peace. See above on other ships. SpinningSpark 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, article is to the point without drifting into any advocacy positions.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has not been edited since 23 March 2019
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	3 images in the article, all tagged PD. Given the age of the ship, the PD claim is likely accurate.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One of the photos is apparently of a similar but different ship with the same name. The other is an apparently different but similar ship with a different name. I'm not sure why those are in this article. Both those ships are discussed in the prose so images are not too far off topic. Both are currently redlinks which might make a better home for the images should anyone ever write those articles. Monarch, in particular, may even be more notable than this ship as the first permanently fitted-out cable ship. SpinningSpark 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Not yet. Some content issues and some prose issues need to be cleaned up, but that can be done when you get a chance.

I will put the GA nomination on hold for now while you look things over. Let me know when you are ready for me to take another look, I won't interrupt you while you make some changes. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to review this. I'm never quite sure how to reply to comments made by reviewers who use templates. For now, I'm putting replies within the template. Please let me know if you want me to do it differently. SpinningSpark 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How you've done it so far is fine. I've seen people bold or italicize their responses to set them apart, indenting works just as well. If you don't want to bold or italicize, signing your comments as you have done also works to separate your remarks from my remarks. I tend to use italics and indents when I respond to reviews. Sorry if the template makes it complicated for you; I like it because it keeps me focused on the relatively generous GA criteria instead of everything that I'd like to see happen to the article to bring it up to brilliant FA state. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered all your comments now. I'm thinking of adding this image of the cable-winching gear and expanding the description of its operation. But with or without that, I'm ready for this to be rereviewed. SpinningSpark 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I get too far into the second review, explain again why there is a photograph of the CS Monarch at the bottom of this article about CS Alert (1890). I did not really understand your explanation in section 6b. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's following the history of the cable-handling gear from Alert. The gear was transferred to Alert (2) [here's a picture], but was later discarded for the same gear fitted to Monarch (3) [here's a picture]. Ok, Monarch (3) relevance is a little tenuous and the cable gear is not very clear in the picture, but there is no better article in which to park this image. I would also justify both images on the grounds that they quite nicely show to the reader the contrast between Alert and the later purpose built cable ships. SpinningSpark 11:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review

Second review of the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Edits to the artice that have occurred to the article since the first review were a definite improvement, and the article now meets the "clear and concise" standard. Spelling is still correct, grammatical issues have been improved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section now effectively summarizes the article. Still no issues with layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In-line references are used, appropriately cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In-line citations are used, sources appear to be reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am not seeing any signs of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No online copyvio or plagiarism detected. Some spot checking of sources provided shows that the citations are accurate and revealed no close paraphrasing or duplication.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is sufficiently broad. The article has been reworded and the link between the ship and the Zimmermann Telegram is clearer now.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Editing to the article have improved the sections of concern raised above without introducing any additional items of concern.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is still stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are PD with appropriate tagging
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Refer to WP:GACR; this isn't an optional part of the GA Criteria. Article still includes media that are not relevant to the subject of the article, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." Comments above have indicated a preference to include the images of the unrelated ships as a "parking place" for those images until articles are created. Until then, I suggest that Wikipedia Commons would be a better place, or creation of stub articles as better places, if those ships meet notability standards. I have read and re-read this section of the article, and the appropriate guidelines. Even the most favorable reading of the GA guidelines, I do not feel that the inclusion of the photographs meets the "significant and relevant in the topic's context" standard. Per second opinion offered by Nikkimaria below, the inclusion of the photographs are not so obviously decorative to fail the GA criteria
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Still fails criteria 6b. Leaving GA nomination on hold for now. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)~~ Article meets GA standards, nice work! RecycledPixels (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't accept your comments on image relevance. They are not irrelevant and declining on that basis is somewhat overinterpreting MOS:PERTINENCE. Besides which, MOS:PERTINENCE seems to have been sneaked into the requirements by way of a wikilink without any real discussion. As far as I can tell, it was added as part of a copyedit/rearrangement of transclusions, not with any consensus that it should become part of GA requirements. The MOS sections that are requirements are listed at criterion 1b and it has always been understood that those are the only parts the MOS that are required at GA. SpinningSpark 22:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images relevant to the subject criteria appears to have been added to the GA criteria on April 18, 2007, after a discussion on the Good article criteria talk page, archived at Wikipedia talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Proposed_reworking_of_the_criteria. No worries, I don't need to have the final word on this, so I will post a request for an independent second opinion on the Good Article Nominations page and I'll go along with whatever that third person thinks. I'll also try to reach out to someone on the Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor list (though most of them are pretty inactive, I see a couple who are active, so it will probably result in a faster response). RecycledPixels (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: (pinging just in case you have stopped watching the page) I never disputed that there was a discussion on reworking the criteria. What there was not was any discussion on adding MOS:PERTINANCE to the criteria. There was not even any discussion on images, or criterion 6b generally for that matter. The link appears to have been added unilaterally by the copyeditor as a helpful link, not as any kind of extension of the criteria. Anyway, thanks very much for reviewing, and thanks for being generous enough to pass the article even though you disagree with some of the content. SpinningSpark 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RecycledPixels (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Nominator: Spinningspark (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs)

The nominator and the reviewer of this article for GA status have a disagreement of whether this article meets criteria 6b of the Good Article Criteria, and whether or not a failure to meet criteria 6b should prevent the article from being listed as a Good Article if the other criteria are met. Please refer to the comments and the reviews above. In short the reviewer feels that the inclusion of the photographs of two ships at the bottom of the article are not relevant to the article, and therefore falls short of the requirements of 6b. The nominator of the article feels that the inclusion of the photographs is relevant due to the other ships being mentioned in the last section of the article. This issue has been discussed, but the two parties continue to disagree. A second opinion is requested. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to provide a second opinion here. By way of background, I do image reviews at FAC, where a lot of articles about ships pass through; I would say it's not unusual to see images of other ships that are somehow related in these articles. On the other hand those articles tend to be quite a bit longer, providing more context to said images and also less weight. I can see a valid argument either for or against retention of these images as an editorial decision, but would not fail the GAN on this basis if the nominator chooses to retain them; they are not so obviously decorative to fail the less stringent GA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]