Talk:HMS Engadine (1911)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but in, but I just would like to state that the section on the sinking of the SS Corregidor is inadequate for a GA. When something like 1,000 people die, that's a huge deal, and a significant part of the ship's history! If it were Americans or Europeans who were sunk on the ship, I do not believe that this is the way this section of the article would be treated. Please expand.

Further, the statement that the "[SS Corregidor] was sunk by a mine off Corregidor most likely laid by Japanese submarine I-124" doesn't match what the source says. The source states first that the mine was an army mine (implying that it was a US army mine), and later states that a man by the name of Dr. Jurgen Rohwer "attributes the sinking to a mine laid by Japanese submarine I 124 on 8 December 1941 off Corregidor, P.I.".

I don't doubt that Dr. Rohwer is respected in his field, but I'm not sure why a Japanese submarine would go lay a Japanese mine in an American mine field. This is a link to the page that your source for this statement was citing [1]. You can see that it is just a tabulation, there is no story or explanation. Compare that chart with the story found in this account[2] (starts near the bottom of page 73), which I am much more inclined to believe.

Thank you very much for your efforts in improving the encyclopedia, and especially an article so relevant to Philippine history, Buttonwillowite (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the scans posted at the bottom of this page. It is one of the most detailed narratives of the tragedy that I have seen up to this point.[3]Buttonwillowite (talk)

I-124 did mine Manila Harbor, but I've gone with Gordon and Cressman. I read through all the material on the links that you provided, but they're dealing of levels of detail far beyond what Wiki needs. There's far more material available than I'd imagined on the incident, which is a good thing, but I don't want to try and summarize or reconcile all that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the section (which describes a maritime disaster within spitting distance of the Titanic) deserves to be expanded prior to GA nomination, based on criteria 3a. But I'm not the official reviewer and Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort. I will do what I can to expand this section of the article as I have time. Best, Buttonwillowite (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. I'll work on this some more later. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until you're done before I comment, but remember that blog posts are inherently unreliable although the source to which they often referred to in that extended discussion may very well be RS. So I don't think that you're going to find an RS that will link the supposed wreck to Corregidor and I don't think that I'd call wrecksite.eu RS. You're also going to have problems with all the published memoirs, etc. as they're primary sources which have their own issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sourcing on the location of the wreck. I was planning to rely mainly on Gordon, since it is a recently published secondary source that gives a pretty full account of the situation, with some Hartendorp and others sprinkled in when appropriate. Are these sources objectionable to you? (I'm not stuck on that quote btw, I'm open to something else.) Buttonwillowite (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're fine. I've tweaked the text a bit to conform to the Manual of Style and took out the subsections since I thought they looked rather odd next to the large quote box. Still not sure that we need to detail the passengers, but I can live with that. Also not sure where to put the note about the possibility that she struck I-124's mine outside the Army minefield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this exchange has caused improvements to the article but I'd prefer to complete the GAR once it's complete or near-complete. I intend to keep the GAR open as long as necessary, but could you please ping me when no substantial changes to the prose are expected so I could proceed? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done, but let's see what Buttonwillowite has to say about my changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been busy with work. I'll set a couple hours aside tomorrow. Your changes look fine to me.Buttonwillowite (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the above issue is by now settled, so I'll proceed with formal GAR below:

Image review (captions, licences) turned up no issues (no action required)
Checklinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
No DAB links found (no action required)
No duplicate links found (no action required)
Referencing appears to be in order (no action required)

In "SS Engadine was laid down by William Denny and Brothers at their Dumbarton, Scotland shipyard as a fast packet for the South East and Chatham Railway's Folkestone-Boulogne run.", I would like to have link to Packet boat article - I had no idea what a packet was and had to look it up. I assume most casual (possibly all non-expert) readers would feel the same way.
- Linked as fast packet in the lede. Do you think that I should link it again?
  - I'd link it. WP:OVERLINK allows that - and even if no major gain is achieved there's no harm to the article itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "It has been estimated that 900-1,200 lost their lives." the range should employ an endash.
- Indeed.

This actually concludes the review - the article is quite good as is, just the one and a half nitpicks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]