Talk:Fore River Shipyard

The Busch/Spear "issue"

There. Now as I've mentioned in connection with this article before and on more than one talk page, this one editor keeps sticking in this information about Spear and Busch, in violation of WP:UNDUE. I've stated before that this is trivial in the scope of the shipyard's history. Without prejudice to the accuracy of these somewhat turgid allegations, they have little enough to do with this article. Fore River had, during its history, many managers and superintendents. No doubt many of them had their own way of doing things, different from those who came before and after. No doubt some inflated their own accomplishments more than others, and no doubt some indulged in more chicanery than others. Why this editor has such a mad on for the manager of the shipyard over a century ago is not my place to attempt to understand, but the fact is that he declines to list any other manager or superintendent or recount any of their accomplishments. That violates WP:UNDUE. As far as bias goes, this editor is the one using harsh and insulting terms for these gentlemen, certainly no evidence of objectivity, and the "information" he tries to put in involve little more than vague weasel words alleging that they were corrupt in some undefined way.

Now if this editor wishes to create and maintain articles for these people he believes it so vital to smear, or to push reliably sourced information into the Electric Boat article, I shan't stop him.  Ravenswing  04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The user is banned from Wikipedia as Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and shouldn't be editing period. Report any further occurrences to the proper places to be dealt with accordingly. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fore River Shipyard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 21:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. "as well as the Navy's first carrier" - "Navy" should not be capitalized as it's not "U.S. Navy" or "United States Navy".

2. "for various Navies around the world" - Again, "Navies" should not be capitalized.

3. "According to one theory, the yard was the origin of the "Kilroy was here" pop culture reference, was home to the second-largest shipbuilding crane in the world" - This sentence needs to be re-written. When you read it out loud, it does not sound right.

4. "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise as the result of building their first ship" - I would recommend changing this to "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise as a result of their first ship".

5. "and afterwards played an important part in the World War" - "World War" should not be capitalized. If he's referring to the First World War write "The Great War" and if he's referring to the second write "The Second World War". "World War" in itself should not be capitalized.

6. "The success of this operation was further strengthened the fact that the shipyard" - The word "by" is missing between "strengthened and "the".

7. "the Prouty Printing Press and Sims-Dudley dynamite gun, staple guns for shoes, and electric light accessories were produced by the company" - Like point 3 this sentence needs to re-written as it's confusing.

8. "United States lightship LV-72 was constructed alongside the destroyers, further strengthening the company financiall" - Considered shortly mentioning exactly why it helped the company financially.

9. "The Des Moines was launched in 1902" - "Des Moines" should be written in italics as its the name of a ship.

10. "which allowed for the building of USS New Jersey (BB-16) and USS Rhode Island (BB-17)" - No need for the "for" addition.

11. "The Navy did mandate" - Should not be capitalized.

12. "with a capital of $6.5 million (equivalent to $177 million in today's dollars)" - I would suggest changing this sentence to "with a capital of $177 million (todays equivalent of $6.5 million in those days) which is easier to understand.

13. "Immediately, Thomas A. Watson realized" - Watsons full name and place in the company has already been stated so simply write "Watson".

14. "Watson realized that the contract would be more costly than anticipated, but soon an order came in for the seven-masted Thomas W. Lawson. This was immediately followed by an order for the six-masted William L. Douglas, which was delivered in 1903" - The significance of the Lawson and Douglas mention is not very clear. This should be clarified.

15. The article takes some funny time-jumps. In the first section, the article mentions events form 1904, then in the second sentence it goes back to 1903 and even 1902. What's the reason behind this?

16. "the owner refused to sell him 3 feet 0 inches" - It appears the word "and" is missing between "feet" and "0".

17. "reimbursement from the Navy" - Should not be capitalized.

18. "the Navy awarded" - Should not be capitalized.

19. "The Russo-Japanese War further benefited the yard" - Consider mentioning the Russo-Japanese War was in 1905 to avoid confusing.

20. "In 1906, USS New Jersey (BB-16) and USS Rhode Island (BB-17) were delivered by the yard, marking the yard's first battleships delivered" - The last part of this sentence comes off wrong. I'm not sure it's grammarly correct to say "marking the yard's first battleships delivered". I would recommend changing this to something like "marking the yard's first battleships creations".

21. "beginning the delivery of battleships" - When followed by the previous sentence this should be change to "and thus beginning the delivery of battleships" or something similar.

22. "that ended in the 1940s" - There is a pretty huge time cap between 1906 and 1940. I would suggest reformulation this to "which first ended in the 1940s".

23. "The yard completed car floats for the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad during this time" - I would recommend changing "during this time" to "in the meantime".

24. "from at least 1907 to around 1920–1921" - the "1920-1921" bit should be changed to "1920-21" per WP:NUMERAL.

25. In the part that talks about the association with a soccer team the article first talks about events that occurred in 1920-21 and then, for some reason, goes back and talks about things from 1911. Why is that?

26. "The maximum price Fore River tendered, $10.7 million, underbid the British by more than $973,000" - I recommend re-written this to "the maximum price Force River tendered was $10.7 million which underbid the British by more than $973,000".

27. "In 1913, Bethlehem Steel Corporation purchased the yard for $4.8 million (equivalent to $115 million in today's dollars)" - I suggest changing this to the version exampled in point 12.

28. "yard was constructing 23 vessels and doing a business of $20 million (equivalent to $477 million in today's dollars)" - Same goes for this sentence.

29. "At this time, Bethlehem decided to construct a drydock" - The previous sentence also started off with "At this time". To match up with manual of style required by the GA-criteria, and also to make the article better, I would suggest using a different wording like "During this period" or "In this time" instead of using the same wording in two sentences followed up by each other which is unprofessional.

30. "although it would take into the 1920s to make this happen" - I would recommend changing "into" with "until" or change the entire sentence to something like "although this was not completed until the 1920s".

I'm not even halfway through the article and already I have listed 30 points. Because of this I am going to stop specifically pointing out sentence or grammar errors and encourage the GA-nominator or the editors who worked on this article to look at the article thoroughly with grammar-critical eyes again.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. 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

c. It contains no original research

The bulk of the sources used in this article are fine, but I have made a list of source-related problems I found.

1. The book sources listed are not arranged alphabetically.

2. Having a sources referenced like this http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/53/5321.htm is not acceptable.

3. I would strongly suggest the "Endnotes" section be re-titled "References" and the "References" section re-titled "Sources".

4. The way the sources are listed in the "References" section is not acceptable, it appears to both miss information and is arranged awfully messy.

5. It's not necessary to mention JSTOR, ISSN and OCLC numbers. Simply one of those is fine.

6. The article cites sources which may be too closely associated with the subject such as this source.

7. This article has references to sources which do not support or state the written facts such as "The yard was faced with inflation, increasing material costs, and demands for higher wages" and Although shipbuilding operations ceased in 1986, the name of the yard continues to be used, and the location is still referred to as Fore River Shipyard".

8. When making a reference to a website that contains loads of information make sure the link is directly to the page that supports the articles content instead of a link to the main page.

9. When citing this "Reid, Alexander (17 July 1994). "Surplus Warship Scheduled to Arrive in City in August". The Boston Globe. pp. South Weekly Section Page 1." and this "Langner, Paul (18 May 1986). "Ship's Christening Signals Shipyard's Death". The Boston Globe. pp. Metro Page 29." I would strongly recommend using a template.

10. Why reference all this "Osgood, Charles (2001). Kilroy Was Here: The Best American Humor From World War II. New York: Hyperion. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7868-6661-8." and not put in the section with all the other books cited and write it like this "Osgood 2001, p. 19." which the article does on the other books?

11. You should always state the first and last name of the author which books are cited (see article reference #13).

12. this this this and this are all broken links.

13. this appears to be a blog and not a reliable source!

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is broad in its coverage. Sentences that appeared off-topic or unnecessary have been addressed in the "Well-written" section.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is fairly neutral and does include personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The articles content does not change significantly from day to day (edits done in the face of the GA-nomination will be ignored) and there has not been an edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is nicely illustrated with a total of eleven images, all of which are uploaded and from Commons. Question though: why are all the images on the right side of the article? It would look better it they were spread out a little bit more.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

Because of all points mentioned in the "Well-written" and "Verifiable with no original research" sections I'm going to fail it. I thought about putting it on hold, but ultimately decided there were too many errors. I will happily review again sometime. Hope this helps and best of luck. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fore River Shipyard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x1295927615
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wickedlocal.com/braintree/news/x1959830142/Departing-Goliath-crane-renamed-USS-Harvey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fore River Shipyard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224183218/https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=11478 to http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=11478
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616071850/http://www.forerivershipyard.com/ to http://www.forerivershipyard.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)