Talk:HMS Phoenix (N96)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I'd suggest combining the very short subsections in the Design section into a larger Design and description section.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and fix the titles of your refs.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
What did the boat do while on the China Station? What makes Britsub.net and Submarines: Chatham Built reliable sources?
That helps a little bit with the China Station bit, but this is going to be the biggest problem satisfying the reasonably complete criteria. There are a ton of ships for which I have good technical histories, but I can't qualify for B-class because they lack any info on peacetime service. I don't do submarines very much so I'm not much help for that. Occasionally you can find histories of individual subs or sub classes like the Anatomy of the Ship book on Alliance or the book on the T-class subs. Don't know what your interests are, but you might try to find copies of them. I think I have the details on my library sub-page on my user page, if you want more details. With Akermann and Rohwer, you can get any war-built sub article up to GA status if she was a war loss, like I did with HMS Unrivalled (P45). Giving a brief look over your sources, you seem to be using Britsub.net to double cite info. This isn't necessary unless each source is providing a piece of what you're citing. Otherwise get rid of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the times things are double sourced because the more reliable source only gives part of the information. When I include information about armament, britsub.net is the only source that describes machine guns. Removing references to machine guns and the machine gun cover would get rid of two of the britsub.net references. Do you think they should be removed? It is also the only source which gives any information on the complement of the ship, but I think that is too important to be removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete the Britsub material. Machine guns are pretty unimportant for a sub and the number of crewmen probably varied on each different patrol. Looking over some of my own articles, I think I'd be rather hypocritical if I were to hold you to a higher standard that other reviewers held me to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
File:HMS Phoenix (N96).jpg is not identified well enough to establish copyright status. I'd suggest you replace it with the other image that you used.
One guy said it was useable, two said to check further for more info. If you can show me where copyright for a photo with an unknown photographer expires 70 years after the date of the photograph in British copyright law, then I won't push this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a more appropriate license for the image which states that an image with an unknown author is in the public domain if it was taken before 1941. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comment on image

I checked with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and they said the image is in the public domain. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I checked the archives for July and August and struck out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/August#Possible government image Since the author is unknown it has been in public domain for a year. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that I did not have the correct licensing information for an image with an unknown author and have replaced the tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

I have been unable to find much information at all about the role of Phoenix in the China Station. Hopefully, the information I have added about the general role of ships in the China Station is a good start. I have attempted to remove instances of britsub.net. I have very limited resources and have been unable to remove all of them. Instances of the usage of either of these are either backed up with references from another source or used on a fairly minor detail. Hopefully these improvements will suffice. I have noticed that you have contributed to and created other articles about ships. Do you know of a good area I can go to find sources? Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend all sorts of books on ships; it all depends on what you're interested in. As I said before, I don't have a whole lot of interest in subs, but I'm your man for surface ships from 1860 to 1960. The biggest problem is going to be tracking peacetime service in enough detail to meet the reasonably complete criteria for GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have used up every possible resource to find information on Phoenix' career before World War II. On that regard, I would like to remind you of footnote 4 of the good article criteria, which states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." In addition, the essay on what the good article criteria are not states

Point A means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. For particular types of article, WikiProjects often provide helpful advice on what the main aspects are likely to be. For an article on a work of fiction, a summary of the plot and a discussion of the reception are usually required. For an article on a disease, the causes, symptoms and treatments are usually significant.

I hope you will keep some of these things in mind when deciding whether to promote the article or not. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]